Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[BadBoy]

Nice example of the fairly common delusion that lack of education somehow imparts special knowledge that eludes the "eggheads".

Hay, check out the Dunning Kruger effect on wikipedia:

"...people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it"[1]. They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence. It also explains why competence may weaken the projection of confidence because competent individuals falsely assume others are of equivalent understanding "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."

Thats Bill right there.

 

[Heiwa]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97584

I did it over a year ago, genius. That's the energy balance. The collapse progresses.

Actually much too little potential energy is available and it is easily absorbed as local failures and friction between displaced elements at the interface. The local failures are arrested at once. A correct energy balance is the right way to prove that a one-way collapse is not possible.

I like the moving display of two types of 'collisions' between a moving and stationary (that should be fixed to ground) object in your link. The jolt is quite evident and it is of course missing in any videos of the WTC destruction. But in real collisions both objects suffer local failures and are subject to friction between elements at the interface and that's where the energy is absorbed.

 

[Heiwa]

Hay, check out the Dunning Kruger effect on wikipedia:



Thats Bill right there.

More likely tfk & Co!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not sure if I am in an English class or an engineering one. lol

Whichever one you're in, you must have had some idea what "non-viable" meant when you wrote it. What did you think it meant?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

At risk of drifting off topic, I think we now have a new metric by which to measure ridiculous posts: The "Monkeys-Hamlet scale". We can even call it "Dave Rogers' Metric for Absurd Keyboarding" or something pseudoprofound like that.

Actually, I pinched it from an old Dilbert cartoon. Don't tell Scott Adams.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97584

I did it over a year ago, genius. That's the energy balance. The collapse progresses.

We always argue Bazant here but I sometimes wonder whether we really should be doing that.

The real fact of the matter is that more than 85% of the core and perimeter columns that connected part A and part C were still intact after the crash and right up to collapse initiation. But somehow we still we had a collapse at virtual freefall speed.

So would you like to share your engineering thoughts on what might have happened to the 250-odd columns that held to the last second before failing 100%. Did they kneel or concertina ? We do not see an overlap of the two blocks so kneeling seems to be out of the question. Over to you Newton.

 

[BadBoy]

Actually, I pinched it from an old Dilbert cartoon. Don't tell Scott Adams.

Dave

I think the dilbert principle is a consequence of the Dunning Kruger effect

 

[Dave Rogers]

But somehow we still we had a collapse at virtual freefall speed.

2003 just phoned, bill. They want their conspiracy theory back.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Whichever one you're in, you must have had some idea what "non-viable" meant when you wrote it. What did you think it meant?

Dave

Viable,adj....def. [Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are]

Ex. A viable seed = one that is capable of fulfilling the function of being a seed.

So by extrapolation you may be able to undertand what I meant- eg he smaller of the two interacting blocks in WTC1 will become 'non-viable'. No longer a force of significance.

To look at it in the context of 'Smith's Law' (below) it is obvious that the upper block (10%) will become non-viable long before the block that it is falling on which consists of the other 90% of the building.And interacting with it every step of the way down in the form of mutual local damage or 'mutual erosion' in my terms. Until the upper block is so eroded that it is 'non-viable' and the lower block is still mostly intact.

Smith's Law
''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely. After that it depends which body is rendered non-viable by mutual erosion first.''

 

[Dave Rogers]

Viable,adj....def. [Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are]

Ex. A viable seed = one that is capable of fulfilling the function of being a seed.

So by extrapolation you may be able to undertand what I meant- eg he smaller of the two interacting blocks in WTC1 will become 'non-viable'. No longer a force of significance.

I see, so the inference to be drawn is that one of the structures will become incapable of exerting force. Would you like to explain how a falling mass can become incapable of exerting a downward force?

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I see, so the inference to be drawn is that one of the structures will become incapable of exerting force. Would you like to explain how a falling mass can become incapable of exerting a downward force?

Dave

Simple. The 47 massive upright columns are shredding the weaker part C every inch of the way down. Gravity is causing it to beome impaled on the columns which are disemboweling part C. leading to entanglemet of the two parts, spillage of much of the rubble and eventual collapse arrest through the entanglememt and increasing non-viabilty of part C.
You can't drive a nail with a tack-hammer as the actress said to the Bishop.

 

[Heiwa]

Topic of this thread is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible and many posters associate this to WTC 1. Fair enough!

The global collapse (sic!) or one-way crushing that ensued can be seen at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related! Or just the start of it, the 'collision' (can you see it?) of the upper part C with the lower structure at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k as also shown below on two snap shots. You can slide the video fwd/aft and see how the upper part C is destroyed first, while everything below remains intact as shown below - there is no impact or collision:

The upper part C of WTC 1 is above the yellow lines applied on the photos of the WTC 1 tower at say floor 97 and the lower structure is below. Snap shot left above is just before destruction starts and snap shot right a few seconds later. It should be clear to anybody that the upper part C above the yellow lines simply disappears in a big cloud of smoke and dust, while nothing has happened to the lower structure, part A, of WTC 1. Evidently gravity alone cannot destroy, shorten, the upper part C before it, the upper part C is supposed to impact and collide with and crush down WTC 1 below! Why is there so much smoke, debris and vertical deformation of the upper part C only? It, the upper part C, is simply destroyed by some energetic material devices and there is no collision with the lower part. Same devices are apparently used to destroy the lower structure of WTC 1 a few seconds later. In the official accounts of the destruction of WTC 1 the upper part C is supposed to remain intact and produce one-way crushing until the end of destruction and be crushed against the ground.

 

[GlennB]

Whatever I do Beachnut I don't lie.

Bill says this, but --- elsewhere he claims that (on another forum) he and tfk were "in broad agreement " that the airliners did not decelerate on impact with the WTC towers. tfk naturally denies this (one obvious reason would be that lack of deceleration could only mean there were no planes there at all). In fact tfk recounted some of the ways he disagreed with bill smith over this issue, here and beyond.

So, dear reader, over to you. Does bill smith lie, or is he merely stupid?
My vote clearly goes towards malicious, malaevolent lying, whose only purpose is destructive. You, however, may view him as "dirt dumb" (Beachnut copyright acknowledged).

 

[Dave Rogers]

Simple. The 47 massive upright columns are shredding the weaker part C every inch of the way down. Gravity is causing it to beome impaled on the columns which are disemboweling part C. leading to entanglemet of the two parts, spillage of much of the rubble and eventual collapse arrest through the entanglememt and increasing non-viabilty of part C.

Ah, the Heiwa fantasy. Would you like to produce some deliberately fudged calculations to back this up? Deliberately ignoring a large proportion of the kinetic energy of the falling block and getting the calculation of elastic shortening energy wrong are useful approaches here.

Your second sentence is, therefore, effectively pointless. Since we can ignore the first part of Smith's Law as being simply Newton's Third law, the second part at most means "Things that aren't capable of knocking down buildings, aren't capable of knocking down buildings." And even that is inferring a certain amount that isn't stated.

I suggest you submit your Law to the Journal of the Bleedin' Obvious.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Bill says this, but --- elsewhere he claims that (on another forum) he and tfk were "in broad agreement " that the airliners did not decelerate on impact with the WTC towers. tfk naturally denies this (one obvious reason would be that lack of deceleration could only mean there were no planes there at all). In fact tfk recounted some of the ways he disagreed with bill smith over this issue, here and beyond.

So, dear reader, over to you. Does bill smith lie, or is he merely stupid?
My vote clearly goes towards malicious, malaevolent lying, whose only purpose is destructive. You, however, may view him as "dirt dumb" (Beachnut copyright acknowledged).

Ol' T is an inveterate archiver. You have seen him dredge up obscure posts from the distant past from the topix forum and repost them here in his many failed attempts to discredit me and perhaps others. You may have noticed that I invited him to repost the arguments we had about the plane entering the buillding with no apparent loss of speed. You may have further noticed that he did not take the opportunity to do so. Draw ur own conclusions. I'm sure others will.

 

[bill smith]

Ah, the Heiwa fantasy. Would you like to produce some deliberately fudged calculations to back this up? Deliberately ignoring a large proportion of the kinetic energy of the falling block and getting the calculation of elastic shortening energy wrong are useful approaches here.

Your second sentence is, therefore, effectively pointless. Since we can ignore the first part of Smith's Law as being simply Newton's Third law, the second part at most means "Things that aren't capable of knocking down buildings, aren't capable of knocking down buildings." And even that is inferring a certain amount that isn't stated.

I suggest you submit your Law to the Journal of the Bleedin' Obvious.

Dave

I'm glad that you agree that 'Smith's Law' points up what should be bleedin' obvious to any person with a working brain.

 

[tsig]

I'm glad that you agree that 'Smith's Law' points up what should be bleedin' obvious to any person with a working brain.

That would depend on how your brain works.

 

[BadBoy]

I'm glad that you agree that 'Smith's Law' points up what should be bleedin' obvious to any person with a working brain.

er, where does "Smiths Law" come from? Can you point me to the source, I cant find it on Wikipedia. Be nice to see it defined in some kind of context.

Bill, can you answer this question directly, where does the mass go to, the mass of the non-viable material? Are you suggesting it all falls of the sides, or are you suggesting it has no further affect? I dont believe even Heiwa is suggesting that the mass of this "non-viable" material should be ignored, which probably makes it viable.

Try getting a friend to drop a bag of sugar or dishwasher salt on your head from your bedroom window. Thats an experiement I think you should try. (er, Im being facetious Bill, dont really try it, unless you are wearing your batman outfit)

Even IF the upper part C completely disintigrates into rubble, it doesnt just stop having any mass. Perhaps it turns into pixie dust

 

[GlennB]

You may have noticed that I invited him to repost the arguments we had about the plane entering the buillding with no apparent loss of speed. You may have further noticed that he did not take the opportunity to do so. Draw ur own conclusions. I'm sure others will.

tfk responded "Your statement is a lie. I presented to the readers at Topix NIST's CLEAR presentation of their analyses in NCSTAR1-2, which show the plane losing about 70% of its velocity while penetrating the outer wall."

If that's wrong, copy+paste his responses from topix that show "broad agreement" with your view about lack of aircraft deceleration at WTC. If you're right, you have it in your power to show tfk to be the liar, in which case you will receive my most sincere apologies.

Or post here with your topix usernames, and I'll have a look myself.

 

[bill smith]

er, where does "Smiths Law" come from? Can you point me to the source, I cant find it on Wikipedia. Be nice to see it defined in some kind of context.

Bill, can you answer this question directly, where does the mass go to, the mass of the non-viable material? Are you suggesting it all falls of the sides, or are you suggesting it has no further affect? I dont believe even Heiwa is suggesting that the mass of this "non-viable" material should be ignored, which probably makes it viable.

Try getting a friend to drop a bag of sugar or dishwasher salt on your head from your bedroom window. Thats an experiement I think you should try. (er, Im being facetious Bill, dont really try it, unless you are wearing your batman outfit)

Even IF the upper part C completely disintigrates into rubble, it doesnt just stop having any mass. Perhaps it turns into pixie dust

If you break part C into hundreds or thousands of smaller parts ech of those parts has it's own (smaller) mass. Not only that they will mostly not act in concert, striking the intact lower block and it's components with those smaller masses at different time ntervals. Not all at the same time. They also lose energy in striking each other from all random directions.
The smaller the parts the more like a liquid they will behave, flowing over and around obstacles wherever possible. Overall it is a simple matter to see that a loose aggregate will never provide the force that an intact body of the same mass will. (see clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page Video analysis WTC1